8 Diamond Bay Road Vaucluse NSW 2030

It's getting more and more difficult to drive around or park in this area. Why is the council approving so many apartments with no extra infrastructure. Isabel and Diamond Bay have had more than 28 extra apartments approved in the last year for the already congested streets.

It's getting more and more difficult to drive around or park in this area. Why is the council approving so many apartments with no extra infrastructure. Isabel and Diamond Bay have had more than 28 extra apartments approved in the last year for the already congested streets.

Why is the council approving so many apartments with no extra infrastructure? The council has approved so many extra apartments in this area, bringing so much inconvenience to the existing residence. The streets are congested and the construction of new apartments is so noisy. It is so unfair to the existing residence.

I've lived in Diamond Bay Road (across the road from the proposed development) for over 23 years and during that time, the parking and traffic congestion have become chronic. The DA suggests 12 car spaces for 7 Units. This is by no means sufficient. I am constantly unable to get my car into my garage as cars park across the driveway. The road is narrow with no space to manoeuvre or have cars pass each other as it is. More residents in this road will just make it hazardous and dangerous for pedestrians. Also the height of this building will compromise the sunshine to the units opposite. I enjoy the full sun in my unit and do not want it blocked out - especially during winter. Please reconsider this DA with regard to existing residents.

There are a couple of problems with this DA. At present, because of the rapid increase in the number of dwellings in the area, there is a shortage of parking in the Diamond Bay Rd - Isabel Ave circle. The road is also very narrow. Each week we witness at least two (and often more than five) instances of road rage where people have parked illegally or find themselves in a stand off over who has right of way driving round. I have had the mirror broken off my car too. The property currently occupying 8 Diamond Bay Rd accommodates one family/group of tenants. Increasing this to seven will exacerbate this situation exponentially. And while there is parking in the plan, this doesn't take into account guests and the recent source of traffic - couriers and food delivery people who already help themselves to my driveway, often at great inconvenience. There's also the architecture. This property is subject to the same R3 zoning as the rest of the street and it is imperative that the plan complies with the building height (12.5m), and floor space ratio (0.9). This will be tricky with so many dwellings. Any increase in building height will encroach on my sunshine and will not be tolerated. I'm sure you'll check this thoroughly. Then there's privacy. Should the plans for this property include balconies or large windows that overlook the street - and therefore my property - my privacy will be compromised. This is unsatisfactory. Finally there's the matter of the construction period and how it will impose on the street. I often work at night and having a construction site across the road will not be easy. I insist on 24/7 access to my driveway and I'm deeply concerned about noise and air pollution.

I’m a resident in the unit next to the proposed four storey development. This will block the sun light from reaching my 2nd floor unit bedrooms. I won’t be able to see any sky. Why do I have windows? The proposed development will be constructed too close to our units and I won’t have any privacy. Both bedroom windows will be exposed and open for the new occupants to look straight into my unit. I already have the blinds down all day on the other side of my unit as the block of units on that side have full view of me . I have no privacy .
As a women I feel vulnerable and open to someone watching me with ill iintentions. The units near us are already a problem but the proposal to build right next to our units will take away the quality of my life and devalue my property.
A four storey building will take away all my privacy and I will have to have the blinds down on both sides of my unit. I won’t be getting any sunlight or views of the night sky. I will feel confined to living in a unit with blinds down on all my windows during the day and night. This is unfair to do this to all the residents in the units and homes next to this development proposal.
The developers proposal to build a penthouse to capture ocean views on the top storey is a matter of greed and making a profit at the expense of those rate payers and residents that already live there.
The property to be developed also has many well established trees which happen to be the natural habit of the small curly tailed possums. All the trees have to remain and more planted to create a buffer area between our property number ten Diamond Bay and the new development. The trees are the living habitat of these native animals. This should be protected by Council Laws. I hope you will consider the conservation of what little wild life and fauna that is left in our neighbourhood and Council area.
I urge you to consider reducing the number of storeys of this development and ensure that their windows are not infringing on our privacy. I would like to see the trees saved. Not bulldozed by accident and the developers just get a fine. Please keep a close eye on this development to prevent any destruction of the natural habitat.
Please consider the residents first and help prevent another huge block development to create more conjestion in an already over crowded street.
Thank you.

To whom it may concern

According to the NSW Ombudsman, when Councils consider development applications they take into account matters including mandatory requirements and considerations listed in s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Specifically, under s.79C, (1), it states that matters for consideration include:

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,
(c) the suitability of the site for the development
(e) the public interest.

My husband (Tomi Strugar) and I (Ana Guinea) oppose this development application
and would like to request that they comply with all requirements and that conditions be imposed for the following reasons:

Context and Setting:

- The scale (bulk, height, mass) form, character, density of the development is not in keeping with the adjacent properties (house on one side and 3 storey block of units on the other side). This development proposes 4 storeys (3 plus 1 “attic”).

The development states that “the proposal exceeds the floor space ratio development standard of the LEP” and they are seeking a variation for this non compliance. The LEP conditions were set that way to improve standards of living, not for developers to ignore them. The variation that is being requested is almost the entire floor space of the proposed “attic” unit.

Please note that page 11 of the statement of environmental effects (4.1.3), states that they have exceeded the floor space ratio by 3.3%. This is a FALSE statement. They have exceeded the standard by 76.3 sqm which equates to 13.4%. This is a huge variation and totally unacceptable.

On page 11 of the statement of environmental effects, they state that they provide a variety of housing types including a "single bedroom apartment". This is a FALSE statement. They are all 2 bedroom apartments. Therefore, they are not consistent with the objective C of the LEP land use table.

On page 22, site setbacks, the LEP states that it should be no less than 4.5 m. The proposal has setbacks between 1.5 and 3 meters. This is a huge departure from the LEP requirements. The fact that other buildings in the area are not compliant does not make it acceptable for this requirement not to be met. The LEPs have been changed over time to improve the quality of life of residents. This setback non compliance also means that they are not compliant with deep planting requirements. The result of all of this, is no room for planting large trees and making the area like a concrete jungle.

The LEP requires the minimum street frontage in an R3 zone to be a width of 15 meters. The site of the proposal is only 12.8 meters wide. This combined with all the other non compliance will deteriorate the living experience of the nearby residents.

On their proposed attic (4th floor), it is also non compliant in many areas including: the attic should not be a self contained unit, the attic should not use roof areas as terraces; the attic should be under the roof of the entire building; the attic should not be greater than 50% of the floor area below etc.

- potential impact on sunlight access (overshadowing). We are on the 3rd floor of the adjacent block of units. The proposed fourth floor in the development will completely block the afternoon sun that comes in to our 2 west facing bedrooms and west facing bathroom. Refer to D18/5270 (19/12/2017) Shadows Elevation document (Image 12).

- visual and acoustic privacy. Currently our 2 bedrooms and bathroom face a garden area so we have complete visual and acoustic privacy. With the new proposal, there will be a total of 5 windows on the 4th floor (Attic) looking down on us, which will mean a complete loss of visual privacy. It will also mean that the noise (from having 7 units as opposed to one house) next to us will likely increase significantly.

- views and vistas. The development submission states that no resident views will be affected. This is a FALSE statement. We have district views from both of our bedrooms and these will be completely blocked.

Access, Transport and Traffic:

- Traffic generation and local road capacity. Most families in the area have at least 2 cars, so that will be at least 14 more cars on the arterial roads. Old South Head road and New South Head road are already at capacity and a car park during most times of the day (as well as during peak times). These extra 7 units will only make the situation worse.

Furthermore, there are insufficient visitor parking spots in this development (as opposed to our unit which has 2 allocated spots), which means that when any of those 7 units have visitors, they will take up parking on Diamond Bay rd, Isabel avenue and old South Head rd which are already at full capacity. Please speak to Council parking officer to confirm this.

Please note that the LEP states 1 visitor car parking space per five units and they have provided 1 so they are not compliant. They are supposed to provide 2. They also clearly state that they are not compliant on motorbike spaces (none provided).

- Public transport availability. The old South Head road bus service is already one of the worst (frequency and crowding) in Sydney, so locals drive and make the roads worse. If the residents of the proposed 7 units started using the nearest bus, they would also make peak hour buses even more crowded.

Please note that by their proposal to widen the driveway, they will further reduce the available street parking.

Safety and Security:

- There is already a safety and security issue for pedestrians and elderly people crossing the road with such a huge number of parked cars blocking the view of other cars on the road. This will only get worse. There have been several instances (of pedestrians almost being run over) already reported to Council and discussions on how to mitigate this with nothing accomplished. The additional traffic from this proposal will increase this safety risk.

The road rage incidents are also increasing and this proposal will only make the situation worse.

Economic impact in the locality:

- property values are used as an indicator of environmental impact and the value of all the properties around this development (including our unit) will go down. You can confirm this by speaking with any Real Estate agent.

Research indicates that increased road congestion means that residents can’t get to work efficiently, reducing productivity and in turn having a negative economic impact.

Flora and Fauna:

- as a result of a few remnant trees left (from the few houses around us), we are still lucky enough to see Kookaburras and Rainbow lorikeets. This development would destroy the last few trees in the street that the local birds use as their habitat.

In summary, the proposal states “The proposal complies with the majority of the provisions of the DCP. “; “the proposal exceeds the Floor Space Ratio development standard of the LEP.” and “maintains views and respects the privacy and amenity of surrounding dwellings.”. It appears that despite this development proposal being non compliant in multiple and significant areas, the developer thinks that they should be excempt from all of them.

On the basis of these numerous and significant factors (including the non compliance of the development in many areas), we would like to formally oppose the development and request that the new development is significantly scaled back as per DCP and LEP requirements.

The developer is clearly trying to put a building which is too large for that land. They are also clearly depending on Council to give them excemptions on all their non compliance to maximise their profit at the expense of the existing surrounding residents of Diamond Bay road and the public interest.

Sincerely

Ana Guinea and Tomi Strugar

I have owned and lived in my unit at No. 10 Diamond Bay Road for 18 years. During this time the traffic congestion in Diamond Bay Road has increased exponentially due to the development of apartments further down the street.

In the “Statement of Environmental Effects, number 2.4 states “the area is going through a transitionary phase, with dwelling houses being converted into contemporary residential flat buildings, or older flat buildings being renovated” with no consideration being taken into account for the build up of traffic in Diamond Bay Road and Old South Head Road which is already nose to tail at peak hour. This will become worse with the proposed development alongside the Diamond Bay Bowling Club and on the opposite side of Old South Head Road. Our roads cannot cope with more vehicles from these developments!!

I have noticed that the Norfolk Pine at 8 Diamond Bay Road is dead and I wonder if it has been poisoned.

I have valued my leafy outlook, the light pouring into my unit and my privacy which will be compromised with a block of 7 units being built close to the fence bordering numbers 8 and 10, and extending so far back on the site.

Jacqueline Johnson

There are three main areas of concern

1. Privacy
2. Street congestion
3. Environmental issues

Unfortunately as we are not builders or architects we can only rely on the council to do an honest and thorough job with the proposal as per other comments it seems they have not adhered to regulations in quite a few areas.

Thank you.